This is a stupid mistake by Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime

No one ever accused them of being particularly intelligent. How smart is it to anger the nation with troops right on your doorstep and a military so advanced that rolling over your nation would hardly cause them to break a sweat?

No, intelligence is hardly in Ahmadinnerjacket's repertoire.

"Iran's foreign policy is turning out to have been very poorly calculated as of late."

It seems to be doing alright. After all, the Iraqi government is primarily run by Pro-Iranian Shiites. Not such a bad achievement really.

So pro-Iranian that they've helped hundreds of them find paradise in recent weeks.

I can get used to that.

This has about as much credibility as Colin Powell's displaying the "evidence" of Iraq's WMD at the UN.

That is, virtually none.

What you guys don't seem to realize is that the US has very little credibility in the wider world at this stage.

[[What you guys don't seem to realize is that the US has very little credibility in the wider world at this stage.]]

Hardly matters given that the US went ahead, assembled a massive coalition and liberatred Iraq and A'stan anyway.

The Iranians would do well to remember the ease with which the Hussein regieme was crushed.

Got to love the speed woith which the left rushes to protect repressive governments the world over, "free Tibet BUT Hugo and Ahmadinajad are cool".

max, for you and Rafar and others like you in "the truther fringe of the 'Bush lied, people died!' sect" that I anticipated in my very first paragraph, it is a matter of religious faith that any evidence can't be real. It screws up your worldview, which only has room for America to be evil.

Of course, you're part of the same bunch that still insists that the was is lost, that recent Iraqi operation in Basra was an epic failure, and that the President can at once be the dumbest man on the planet and yet is so brilliant that he can fool Congress and the governments and intelligence operations of the entire world into starting a war based on "obvious" lies. We're not exactly holding out high hopes of you uttering anything profound, but thanks for stopping by all the same.

CY

Did, or did not, Colin Powell put forward a farrago of lies and misinformation about so-called Iraqi WMDs in the UN in the run up to the war?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Did Colin Powell have Saddam's WMDs in his possession like we do with these rockets, mortar shells, and explosives?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

CY

Your unwillingness to answer the question I posed indicates to me that you know he presented a pack of lies, but you're unable to admit it.

"Pack of lies," huh?

Sure, why not? Colin Powell lied for George W. Bush's War for Oil.

We also tricked the British, the Germans, the French, the Israelis, the Russians, the Chinese, the Saudis, the Iranians, etc. We're the bestest ever at lying, not just one lie at a time, but in entire packs—nay, legions and divisions of lies employed with blitzkrieg like precision.

-OR-

We bought into the disinformation that Saddam was pushing, and interpreted dubious data from bad sources in the way we expected it to come out. There is a world of difference between bad and agenda driven interpretation and lies, of course. But don't worry, we don't expect you to have the intellectual honesty or integrity to admit that.

But we do have these munitions in our hands right now, and a press conference ill be held Monday providing the media with details of the captured material in handouts (and of course, a powerpoint slideshow), along with confirmation for various folks who were captured with the weapons.

Of course, I'm only talking to the military in Iraq involved in this right now via email, so what would I know?

Good morning, Mr. Owens. One of your readers opines above that the U.S. military is "so advanced that rolling over [Iran] would hardly cause them to break a sweat[.]"

Do you endorse such a point of view?

The U.S. military, excellent as it is, seems to be breaking more than a sweat in Iraq. Do you really think an invasion of Iran should be contemplated with the attitude that it would be a no-sweat operation?

This thinking seems near delusional, and highly dangerous.

Thanks,
Keith Nolan

Max:

Stop drinking the kool-aid. Powell went with the best information he had. Some of it was wrong. That is not lying.

Hell, Saddam Hussain thought he had WMD. He gave orders to use them. He had probably been lied to by his officers trying to avoid 9-mm brain hemorrhages. That's the problem with being a ruthless dictator. People ain't likely to tell you the truth if it's bad news. Considering that a lot of our intelligence from Saddam's Iraq was signal intelligence, we got the same lies he did. Again, believing the lies told by your enemies is and repeating them is not the same thing as lying.

And we did find tons of Sarin gas in Iraq after the war. We were told by the left that it's supposed to have been left over from before the Gulf War (and therefore does not count -- even though Saddam said he would get rid of all of it, no exceptions). The strange thing was that the first shell we found (as an IED) was a binary shell -- and the Iraqis did not have any of those prior to the Gulf War. Where oh where did that come from?

The "Saddam had no WMD and planned on getting none" meme repeated ad nauseum has been exploded many times. Repeating an untruth over and over again does not make it true.

Keith,
"Without breaking a sweat" is an overstatement, I think. It would not be particularly easy. However, I suspect that if the US and the Iranian military were to go toe-to-toe the US win handily - without entirely discounting the Iranians, I think we have a clear advantage in terms of air and naval power. The problem, like in Iraq, would be afterwards.

Exactly, Grey Fox. In Iraq, we are attempting to rebuild the country and foster a democracy. Assuming the same would be true with respect to Iran, your concern is correct. However, CCG's statement of "no sweat" does not presume the same intentions. His presumption is that our military vs theirs would not be a contest as evidenced by the performance of Saddam's military in 2003.

Clarification - "your concern is correct" above is directed @ Keith.

you know Max, you've been posting here long enough to know I don't allow profanity, so by all means, keep posting it, and I'll keep deleting it.

-OR-

You wanted to invade Iraq from the get-go. Even the neocons have admitted that the whole WMD effort was a pretext, something to provide a legalistic figleaf for the invasion and which would help some reluctant allies join in. (They've nearly all gone now, haven't they? Even the Brits don't want to help at this stage.)

So the plan was to eliminate Saddam and occupy Iraq. "For a 100 years, if necessary" as McCain has said. Wonder why? Nothing got to do with oil, has it? Surely not!

Maliki launched the attack on Sadr to wipe out his power base before the upcoming elections. (How democratic!)

The Americans want to wipe out Sadr not because he is pro-Iranian but because he is anti-American. Maliki is more pro-Iranian than Sadr.

No-one doubts the ability of the Americans to eliminate everyone and everything that gets in their way by means of their firepower. The problem is that strategically they are completely confused. Or at least they are if you believe that their goals are a free Iraq, democracy, blah blah blah.

If you believe that what they really want to do is occupy Iraq indefinitely, with a pretty low rate of casualties (who anyway mostly come from the poorest strata of American society and are dispensable), then I guess they are not strategically confused at all.

Good morning, Mr. Owens. One of your readers opines above that the U.S. military is "so advanced that rolling over [Iran] would hardly cause them to break a sweat[.]"

Do you endorse such a point of view?

Not at all. I agree with you it would be highly dangerous, specifically, brief and intense, with a lot of purposeful collateral damage against civilians by the Iranians. It is not desired, even when it seems all but inevitable. Military conflict should be a last resort only after all political options fail.

If you had Ahmadinejad on tape holding Americans hostage it still wouldn't be sufficient to convince the America Haters of his hostility.

Mark is correct, I was referring only to the relative ease with which we'd win a military-vs-military confrontation, not any counterinsurgency that might develop.

I think some of the lefties get confused between "War" and "Post-war rebuilding". Not to discount the danger during the rebuilding process here, but we have not been at "war" since three weeks after we entered Iraq.

As such, CY's comment about not breaking a sweat is an overstatement, but it is not much of one. If the United States and Iran decide to step onto the court and play a little one-on-one, it would be like Michael Jordan playing a high school JV player. As long as Michael plays to win, the JV player is not going to even score a basket, let alone win the game. Now, if Michael does not put full effort into it, the JV player may make a basket or two and mug for the cameras. He will not win, but he knew that going into it.

If this JV player is being a punk and threatening the others in the gym, than by all means treat him like the punk he is.

Max,

Did Saddam admit, under questioning by the US, that he planned to get the UN out of his country and restart his WMD factories?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Did Saddam admit that he lied to make it appear as if he actually had WMD?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Does the American left think that Iraq run by a dictator with ties to Al-Qaida, plans to make WMD and a history of using WMD would be a better than a democratic Iraq run by the Iraqi people?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Megapotamus, that was actually pretty funny. Dark, ironic humor, but pretty funny.

Dang, Grrrrrr, you waved your logic stick at him and he got scared and left.

I should also point out that I do not actively wish war with Iran. I am merely pointing out Ahmadinnerjacket's idiocy in provoking the world's only superpower.

Why is it that military haters like Max have to keep lying. We all know that soldiers come from higher academic and financial backgrounds than the average American. I bet the average soldiers IQ would be 20 to 30 points higher than Max's

Capitalist Infidel, it's hard to square your observation on the US military with the fact (reported only a few days ago) that the Army is letting in more felons than ever before. High standards indeed!

Max, how can we get you to stop lying? I know far left wing fanatical America hating kooks like yourself are incapable of shame but here are the facts anyway:

Myth: Military recruits are less educated and of lower aptitude than American youth.

Fact: The opposite is true. Over 90 percent of military recruits have a high school diploma – a credential held by only about 75 percent of their peers. A traditional high school diploma is the best single predictor of “stick-to-it-iveness” and successful adjustment to the military. Recruits with a high school diploma have a 70-percent probability of completing a three-year term of enlistment, compared with a 50-percent likelihood for non-graduates.
Nearly two-thirds of today’s recruits are drawn from the top-half of America in math and verbal aptitudes – a strong determinant of training success and job performance

You can find the rest of the truth here.

Why is it the left has to lie? And their lies are so easily debunked. Like I said before I have no doubt that the average IQ of our soldiers is considerably higher than Max and the rest of his military hating ilk.

Many thanks, Mr. Owens, and others, for responding so quickly to my question about the U.S. military's ability to roll over Iran without breaking a sweat. Glad that most here do not really agree with such a statement.

I must respond, though, to another reader's comment that "I think some of the lefties get confused between 'War' and 'Post-war rebuilding.' Not to discount the danger during the rebuilding process here, but we have not been at 'war' since three weeks after we entered Iraq."

My jaw is still hanging open at that one!

First of all, I'm not a lefty. Secondly, war is war is war no matter what faux-comforting labels one slaps on the different phases of involvement. We're not at "war" in Iraq? We're only involved in some "post-war rebuilding"? There hasn't been a "war" in Iraq "since three weeks after we entered Iraq"?

Such thoughts are almost too surreal to digest.

I guess the U.S. wasn't really at "war" in Vietnam, either. I mean, the U.S. military landed en masse in South Vietnam in 1965-66, secured all major cities, and quickly built an incredible series of fire bases, base camps, and logistical facilities. I guess the "war" was over at that point. All that killing, dying, and maiming that took place from 1966-1975 was just "post-war rebuilding?"

You know, as a middle-of-the-road type, politically speaking, I might suggest that the right-wing does itself no favors by speaking so glibly about something as sordid and terrible as war.

Cake walks, no-sweat invasions, and post-war rebuilding, indeed.

Finally, there's this comment: "Why is it that military haters like Max have to keep lying. We all know that soldiers come from higher academic and financial backgrounds than the average American. I bet the average soldier's IQ would be 20 to 30 points higher than Max."

To begin with, there is a big difference between military-haters and war-haters.

Secondly, while the U.S. officer corps is mostly made up of college graduates (and those up the chain have advanced degrees, etc.), I find it incredible that anyone believes that the grunts on the ground--the guys who actually do most of the killing and dying--come from the higher educational and financial backgrounds in the U.S.

Really? For reasons too involved to discuss here, I know thousands of Vietnam veterans. Those who served in rifle companies, by and large, were black, brown, country kids, or the sons of blue-collar workers.

I've lived in both rural and middle-class communities during the war in Iraq. At my daughter's current middle-class school, you'd hardly know there's a war on. When she was going to school in Washington Co., Missouri--one of the poorest counties in our state--the classrooms were plastered with photos of fathers and older brothers who were in Iraq. The collar brass on all those rural servicemen was either infantry or cavalry.

There are exceptions to every rule, but, by and large, rich kids do not run out and sign up to be grunts.

Thanks Again,
Keith Nolan

Well, CI, that's fine and dandy if they're such an accomplished bunch. I'm still curious as to why the military is dropping its standards. From Sept. 30, 2006, to Sept. 30, 2007, the army granted so-called conduct waivers for felonies and misdemeanors to 18 percent of its new recruits, three percent up on the previous year.

That's almost one fifth of new recruits! What gives?

[[Many thanks, Mr. Owens, and others, for responding so quickly to my question about the U.S. military's ability to roll over Iran without breaking a sweat. Glad that most here do not really agree with such a statement.]]

Without breaking a sweat is clearly an overstatement. But based on what happened in Iraq its clear that it would not be very difficult

Doesn't it seem appropriate to return them .. from say 20,000 ft.

[[From Sept. 30, 2006, to Sept. 30, 2007, the army granted so-called conduct waivers for felonies and misdemeanors to 18 percent of its new recruits, three percent up on the previous year. That's almost one fifth of new recruits! What gives?]]

The rising number of US citizens with felony and misdemeanor convictions for one. The same thing is happening in US companies.

Hey Max, Is anybody there? Presented with the actual facts regarding the educational level of our troops your response is "well that's fine and dandy...". Then you go and quote a New York Times smeer piece about the convicts that will be taking over the military. Great rebutal pal. I think the Daily Koz is one moonbat short today!

I may be misunderstanding what Max is referring to (not being fluent in anti-war gibberish), but it sounds to me like the Armed Forces are giving people who've made a mistake or two a second chance; and a chance to learn a trade and serve their country at the same time. Rehabilitation, in other words.

Seems Max thinks that's a bad thing.

Um...haven't we seen this movie before?

In February of 2007, the U.S. trotted out "Iranian" shells and rockets with "incriminating markings" - the only problem was, the markings were in English, and used the Western B.C. calendar year of 2006(Iran marks their weapons in their own language - Persian - and uses the "Anno Persarum" calendar (currently AP 1387 per Wikipedia).

See the photos from the U.S. Army-provided slide-show: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/iran-in-iraq/?resultpage=11&

Do they (do you) think the American public is THAT stupid, and has THAT short a memory...? ...oh, wait...they do, because they do...

[[Do they (do you) think the American public is THAT stupid, and has THAT short a memory...? ...oh, wait...they do, because they do...]]

Are the pascifist, lefty defenders of the Iranian regime so STUPID that they think that Iran would illegally send weapons to Iraq with Iranian markings on them? I guess so other wise "NE Clark" wouldnt be posting this BS.

Do they (do you) think the American public is THAT stupid, and has THAT short a memory...? ...oh, wait...they do, because they do...

I'd like to thank you for proving my first sentence after the WSJ content yet again.

For your future reference, countries build munitions for both local and export markets, and those built for export markets typically feature English writing, metric measurements, and the Western dating system. Just as English is the language of international air travel and many other international businesses, it is with arms distribution. Not that that choice of stenciled words or numbers really matters in identifying a weapons origin.

As I noted in the second sentence, it is the construction of the weapon that matters.

Let me reproduce both of those sentences now, since you obviously skipped over them to throw out your irrelevant talking points:

Markings, of course, are easy to fake, and the truther fringe of the "Bush lied, people died!" sect are sure to accuse the Administration and/or elements of the military with doing just that. Much harder to fake, however, are the materials used, certain tool marks, and other mechanical and electrical components. Taken together, the component pieces form a unique signature that EOD experts can read like a fingerprint. As far as our military is concerned, the markings only serve to confirm what explosive experts could already tell from even unmarked weapons.

So to answer you, I don't think the American public is stupid. They understand logic, and can grasp that how something is made and what it is made of can indicate where it was made, and even when.

I worry, though about some people with rabid fanaticism. You have no interest in discerning facts, just dictating beliefs. Enjoy your faith, but don't expect to win many converts.

Some American people are stupid, and some are smart. The real issue is that a lot of smart and stupid Americans like to believe their leaders won't play on their patriotism to back a war based on false pretenses. Those people got duped in 2002-03. You all got duped. What's astounding is that you don't care. You're like abused wives of alcoholics defending their husbands. As each "reason" for the war is discredited, you brave armchair warriors just pick up another one. It's pathetic that you don't demand better from our government.

[[Some American people are stupid, and some are smart. The real issue is that a lot of smart and stupid Americans like to believe their leaders won't play on their patriotism to back a war based on false pretenses. Those people got duped in 2002-03. You all got duped. What's astounding is that you don't care. You're like abused wives of alcoholics defending their husbands. As each "reason" for the war is discredited, you brave armchair warriors just pick up another one. It's pathetic that you don't demand better from our government.]]

Whats really pathetic is that some Americans still cling desperatly to the notion that we were "duped into war based on false pretenses". Are you trying to tell me that Saddams use of WMD, he self admitted desire to recreate them, his ties to al-Qaida, his repression of his own people, the fact that "Bushes War" has established a democracy in place of a brutal dictatorship is "false pretenses".

The left are like abused wives. They get attacked on 9/11 and they just smile and grimly await another one.

WEAK.

PATHETIC.

"Are you trying to tell me that Saddams use of WMD, he self admitted desire to recreate them, his ties to al-Qaida, his repression of his own people, the fact that 'Bushes War' has established a democracy in place of a brutal dictatorship is 'false pretenses'."

Yes, because some of what you say is false, and because some has nothing to do with the stated reasons for invasion. That you continue to parrot them like White House spokesman after all you've learned is fascinating, though.

Start with the easy one. Saddam had no ties to Al Quaeda. That's been discredited up one side and down the other. Therefore, no connection to 9-11. But Saudi Arabia sure did.

Next. Saddam did in fact disarm, so he had no WMDs on invasion day. (To have fully investigated this prior to invasion would have spoiled the party, though). Thus, not only did he not have them, the U.S. was in no danger, and thus no cassus belli.

Next. The U.S.'s reason to go to war was to enforce the 1991 UN sanctions, not to create a democracy. So, yet again, you believe the war was waged for a reason that doesn't exist. Same goes the the repression of the Iraqis pre-invasion.

It's funny, though, that you seem self-satisfied that we did the Iraqis a big favor by "liberating" them. Unfortunately for them (including all the dead and maimed ones), there's worse ways to live than under a secular dictatorship.

Craig, you're lying just like max. The 9-11 report clearly states that Iraq had many many ties to al Qaeda. Do you left wing kooks even bother to check facts or do you just believe what other kooks say? Have you any idea how embarrassing you guys look? It's so easy to debunk all your lies.

[[Start with the easy one. Saddam had no ties to Al Quaeda. That's been discredited up one side and down the other. Therefore, no connection to 9-11. But Saudi Arabia sure did.]]

Infact Al-Qaida was but one of the many international terrorist organizations (all inter related in terms of personel, goals and funding) that Saddam had ties to. Saddam hosted conferences for militant Islamic groups for heavens sake.

[[Next. Saddam did in fact disarm, so he had no WMDs on invasion day. (To have fully investigated this prior to invasion would have spoiled the party, though). Thus, not only did he not have them, the U.S. was in no danger, and thus no cassus belli.]]

Riiiight, the US was in no danger for a dictator with the ability, experience and desire to make WMD and ties to Islamic terror groups including Al-Qaida. Come see the suicidal thought process of the hard left!

[[Next. The U.S.'s reason to go to war was to enforce the 1991 UN sanctions, not to create a democracy. So, yet again, you believe the war was waged for a reason that doesn't exist. Same goes the the repression of the Iraqis pre-invasion.]]

Completley false. Read the resoulution congress voted on to authorize the liberation of Iraq. Amidst the recognition that Iraqis deserved freedom, that al-Qaida had ties to Saddam etc was the observation that democracy in Iraq would be good for Iraqis, the US and the world.

[[...there's worse ways to live than under a secular dictatorship.]]

True, but the new democratic Iraq is not one of them. The stable, strong and peacefull Iraq that is emerging is certainly not one of them. The desire of the pascifist left to leave the people of Iraq in Saddams hell hole simply boggles the mind in terms of it calous, lazy, apathetic evil.

But hey free Tibet, save Darfur and all that (as long as we dont, you know, actually do anything about it).

Does Glenn Greenwald still think U.S. forces are bogged down fighting an unwinnable battle against Sunni insurgents in Anbar province?

G+rx15-

That the resolution "recognized" that a democratic Iraq would be good thing does not turn that into the justification for war. Those are like a superfluous "wherein" clauses in contracts. It's just happy fluff. What I said initially was accurate: alleged violations of 1991 sanctions.

You're also conflating contacts with cooperation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. This has been known and reported for years.

The very fact that he did disarm in response to the weapons inspectors and sanctions proves that the U.S. was safe from Iraq. I can't help that you were scared so witless after 9-11 that the only comfort was whooping up on Saddam, but nonetheless, the U.S. was safe.

As between you and me, I'm the conservative. You're the radical. It is radical and not conservative to start wars of choice to nation build based on happy talk of "beacons of hope" for the Middle East. It is radical and not conservative to squander U.S. power and money destroying a country, then trying to build it differently again. And it is radical, not conservative, to use OUR resources to reinvent societies and governments halfway around the world.

You let fear rule you back when W said he'd keep you safe, and you should feel ashamed. It takes more strength and courage to hold off from war than to charge in like a bunch of frightened school girls. So don't act like you're a tough guy, since you so clearly needed daddy W to keep scared little Grrrrrr safe. There there, Grrrrrrr, it's ok, don't be scared, shhhh, shhhh, mean ol' Saddam can't hurt you anymore.

Craig is lying once again, he stated first that Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda, when I proved he was lying he changed to Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. How embarrassing to be Craig.

CI:
I said not ties, not that there had never been contacts. There's a difference. Did you make and have contact with Piggly Wiggly checker when you bought your Weekly World News? Yes. Do you have ties to that checker as a result? No. Step up your game, son.

[[You're also conflating contacts with cooperation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. This has been known and reported for years.]]

Thats a BS leftist straw man argument. Of course Iraq has no direct involvement in planning and carrying out the 9/11 attack, Bush never claimed that. (but neither did the Taliban and many lefties are happy to see the US still kicking their ass 6 years after the liberation of Afghanistan).

[[Just happy fluff.]]

Trying to claim that only certain parts of the liberation resoultion count is completly dishonest. If violations of the 1991 resolution was the reason the US freed Iraq then you have no argument because Saddam regularly violated the terms of his surrender by attacking US forces in Iraq.

[[As between you and me, I'm the conservative. You're the radical. ]]

Well jolly good for you and me. I'd argue that its conservative to liberate opressed people (after all Republicans ended slavery, Democrats supported slavery).

[[You let fear rule you back when W said he'd keep you safe, and you should feel ashamed. It takes more strength and courage to hold off from war than to charge in like a bunch of frightened school girls. ]]

LOL. Thanks for the psycoanalysis. You should feel ashamed for your blatent anti-Arab rascism regarding Iraq and you characteristic lefty fear; ("ooooh, we have to flee from Iraq, it sooooo scary, and I think Ive peed my pants).

It takes more courage to wimper like a "dont taze me bro" hippy college girl than "charge in" and liberate Iraq? ROTFLMAO

Weakness is strength.

Strength is for the weak.

Doing the moral thing is cowardice.

Being a coward is strong.

Human rights are a "radical concept".

Retreat is winning.

Victory is failure and is only for conservative wimps.

Craig, scroll up and read the 9-11 report, Iraq had many many TIES to al Qaeda. It is a fact. Now, please stop lying.

Gr-

"I'd argue that its conservative to liberate opressed people (after all Republicans ended slavery, Democrats supported slavery)."

If up is down, and black is white, then you're right that killing thousands and thousands of people and spending crazy money trying to remake an entire society is conservative. But you're wrong.

Nevertheless, now we're getting somewhere. Quick, let's liberate the Palestinians who live in the world's two largest open air prison camps. And as a result, we will be more SAFE since the Muslim world won't think we're in the Israelis' pockets anymore. No more Marine Corp barracks bombings, no more 9-11's. How 'bout it?

What a surprise, Craig is also a vicious anti-Semite

I agree, Craig, let's go liberate the Palestinians. That means getting rid of Jimmah Cahtah's latest friends, Hamas, because they're the ones that are responsible for lobbing missiles at Israeli territory and other acts of war.

By all means, let us destroy Hamas and the terrorists and sympathizers and free the Palestinian people from their grip.

[[Quick, let's liberate the Palestinians who live in the world's two largest open air prison camps. And as a result, we will be more SAFE since the Muslim world won't think we're in the Israelis' pockets anymore. No more Marine Corp barracks bombings, no more 9-11's. How 'bout it?]]

Well we did liberate the Kosovars and Kuwaitis (both Muslim populations) so your proposal will be unlikly to help in the way you suggest. Of course, who would we liberate the Palestinians from, since thay are living in their own country under leaders they elected? Libearting them from Hamas and Hisbolla is an OK idea I guess. Just dont put the "free Tibet", "save Darfur", "stop the Iraq sanctions crowd" in charge else nothing will get done.

And CI takes the bait.

[[If up is down, and black is white, then you're right that killing thousands and thousands of people and spending crazy money trying to remake an entire society is conservative.]]

BTW, how many French die when we liberated their country? How many Germans ands Japanese died when we remade their societies from fascist imperialistc dictatorships into free democracies?
How many Koreans died when we defended them from Communist totalitarianism?

Look, the only people craig wants to see die are Americans and Jews.

Craig - Virtually the entire left stopped using your talking points a few years back because they couldn't pass the pink face test with them anymore. Are you just finishing Poli Sci 201 or are you a few years behind the times? Making arguments based on demonstrable falsehoods is not a good way to gain credibility for your side, but I don't think that is your interest in any event. You've had your backside handed to you so many times on this site I am curious why you come back though.

You have to be pretty freakin' ignorant to compare WWII to Iraq. But there is no way I will trade my Friday afternoon/evening to bring you up to speed. But it does give me a window into your mind (Brave Sir Grrr imagining himself on a white horse saving the people of Iraq).

Korea should not have been fought. Or Nam.

Daleyrocks-
I come back b/c you make it so easy for me. Look at what you wrote! Not a single factual source to refute anything I wrote. Not a single argument. Just snide comments and insults. See, that's not how one hands another said other's backside. It's how one looks too intellectually lazy or clueless to form-u-late an argument. You too need to step up your game.

Like I said the only country (other than the U.S.) Craig would like to see attacked is Israel.

It is Friday, I guess Craig got his government check in the mail today

First of all, WOW. The vitriol in these comments! You guys need to google the phrase "Arguing on the internet is like..." Seriously, wow.

Secondly, CY, you really should give the guys at The Post some props. You nitpick every word in their articles, but never give them credit when they write damn good articles. Credit is due here.

Craig, one refutes an intelligent debater.

One plays with a cat-toy.

Guess which category you fall into.

Craig - Why do you think you deserve to be more refuted than you already have by the other commenters. Every time a new idiot boy from the left comes by here with the stale debunked talking points you are using they expect to be taken seriously. WHY? You don't look at the links that others have provided, you ignore the data, you use compromised sources of your own. You are intellectually dishonest and appear to lie deliberately.

Is there a reason anyone one here should take the time to respond seriously to your garbage Craig? Is your information sound? Are your theeories sound or just mindless BDS?

As far as I can tell from your comments here you deserve absolutely no credibility.

No hude surprise really. Iran was always going to attempt to grab larger influence in Iraq after Saddam.

[[You have to be pretty freakin' ignorant to compare WWII to Iraq.]]

Not really, both were wars where Americans liberated opressed peoples, (much to the annoyance of Americans foolish liberal minority).

[[But there is no way I will trade my Friday afternoon/evening to bring you up to speed.]]

Thank you, your amateurish attemps at debate so far suggest that your attemp would be undearably lame.

[[But it does give me a window into your mind (Brave Sir Grrr imagining himself on a white horse saving the people of Iraq).]]

LOL. OK you dress wearing liberal. Seriously, I think America needs to bring back dodge ball. Its a little scary that so many American men are feminized wimps.

[[Korea should not have been fought.]]

The people of South Koreas vibrant society, looking north the the commy waste land of uncle Kim disagee.

[[Or Nam.]]

The worst foreign policy mistake in US history was the cowardly democrat parties failiure to fund the South after the US had won the war in Vietnam. The subsequent communist invasion, plus the killing fields of Cambodia amount to simply more blood on the hands of the girly men on the left.

Nobody's talking about invading Iran. We don't have to. The point of a military operation will be first to send a message to Iran to knock off their terrorism inside Iraq.

If Iran retaliates, then we'll destroy their offensive military capabilities. People forget that Iran is a much more open society than Iraq was, so we have much more information on where things are located. We have Iranian, Iraqi, other Arab, and Israeli assets throughout Iran. Also, several high-ranking Iranian intelligence officials defected last year.

In 1988 we defeated Iran in one afternoon. Iran is using the same military technology they had back then, while ours is exponentially more sophisticated.

Also, the U.S. military is now the most experienced industrialized fighting force on the planet. No other developed country today has fought as prolonged a conflict as we have.

Iran fought its last war twenty years ago. It couldn't even beat Iraq, which had the worst army in the middle east.

"In 1988 we defeated Iran in one afternoon. Iran is using the same military technology they had back then, while ours is exponentially more sophisticated"

We Did?

Juan,

Secondly, CY, you really should give the guys at The Post some props. You nitpick every word in their articles, but never give them credit when they write damn good articles. Credit is due here.

I agree. This is a great piece of journalism. Kudos to Yochi Dreazen and The Wall Street Journal.